TURNOUTS

[claycts]

Scale is HO, code 83. Open Budget and to OLD to scratch Build.
What brand of turnout would you buy?
The count is 51 #6, 2 #6 3 way and 5 #6 double crossovers. Looks like the Tortouse will get the actuator job.
I have been waiting 38 years to build a pike. SInce I was 20 was the last one I built.

[rrinker]

Well, some people will look down on you if you use Atlas, but that's what I use, and I have never had any problems with them. But they don't make a 3-way or a double crossover, so for those you would have to look elsewhere, probably Walthers/Shinohara.

--Randy

[cwclark]

pecos are probably the best turnouts but they have a locking device at the points that aren't kind to tortoise machines....(I quit using them because of this)..so...Walthers has an excellent code 83 turnout ( Shinohara which is basically the same ...Shinohara manufacters for Walthers)..and it suits the tortoise to a tee...another turnout that i've heard about (never used them) are the ones from Micro Engineering...heard that they are also good turnouts....personnally besides some shinohara turnouts, I also use those cheap old Atlas Mark III turnouts with the metal frog...I know you'll hear a lot of flack about using the Atlas turnouts but i've had very little problems with them once the frogs are filed down a bit... and with 36 turnouts on my layout, purchasing the better brands will drain my pocketbook..... since you are going to use tortoise machines (off the subject now)...it will be a wise move if you throw away the spring wire that comes with the tortoise and install something thicker .039 - .043...the spring wire that comes with the tortoise is too flexible and can bend instead of throwing the turnout...you'll need a drill bit also to increase the hole size where the spring wire fits into the tortoise machine...a good LHS should have both the spring wire and the drill bits you will need....Chuck

[tstage]

George,

Here's the link that Randy was refering to: http://www.walthers.com/exec/search?quick=walthers+turnouts

I don't have experience with their turnouts but I do with their crossings. The crossings are VERY good quality and are much quieter and smoother than the ATLAS crossings. I have been VERY pleased with them so far. They are only a couple of bucks more in price than the ATLAS. Walthers/Shinohara also makes a curved turnout - if you should be interested in adding one into your layout.

Like Randy, I also use ATLAS turnouts and really haven't had much problem with them.

Tom

[mikebonellisr]

I use shinohara turnouts with the tortoise motors and peco with the hand thrown switches,
I've up and running since 1995 with not 1 turnout problem.I operate with DCC and my tortoise's are powered by a bi-polar power supply that has never been turned off except for a couple of area power failures over the years

[challenger3802]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrinker

Well, some people will look down on you if you use Atlas, but that's what I use, and I have never had any problems with them. But they don't make a 3-way or a double crossover, so for those you would have to look elsewhere, probably Walthers/Shinohara.

--Randy

Peco make 3-way and double crossovers, amongst others. Their latest range includes code 83 track and turnouts.

Ian

[claycts]

Thank you ALL. I have 600 ft od code 83 Atlas that I got for $1.10 a few years back. I got a SAMPLE of the Atlas Mark III and they looked OK but I remeber the old days when the formula was "1 Atlas #4 Crossover +6 cars in reverse=$ on the floor" and I do not mean a gear shift![:D]

[cacole]

The spring can easily be removed from a Peco turnout to make them free moving for Tortoise machines, by bending up two small tabs on the bottom of the turnout that hold a cover over the spring, and then simply removing the spring. I think Peco turnouts are some of the best made. For good prices on Peco track products, check http://www.cchobbies.com

[rrinker]

QUOTE: Originally posted by claycts

Thank you ALL. I have 600 ft od code 83 Atlas that I got for $1.10 a few years back. I got a SAMPLE of the Atlas Mark III and they looked OK but I remeber the old days when the formula was "1 Atlas #4 Crossover +6 cars in reverse=$ on the floor" and I do not mean a gear shift![:D]

Well, before I permanently mounted anything, i set up a few tests. I wanted to make my sidings lower, so I intent to put those on N scale roadbed, which is not as thick as the HO stuff. In the mockup I built, it looks great. Then for a torture test, I dropped a siding off the #4 at HO roadbed level straight to the foam, with no transition grade or anything - everything you are NOT supposed to do. I then shoved cuts of cars through in all directios to see how well they would track. With a #6, nothign I could do would make them derail. With a #4, I had to shove the cars at warp speed before they would derail. I then tried some variosu locomotives - 4 axle diesels, no problems. 6-axle diesels with long wheelbases - DL109 - NO problem. AHM/IHC GG1's - no problem. BLI GG1 - no problem. Bowser PRR T-1 - no problem. All these locos negotiatied this purposely poorly build section of trackwork at full throttle speeds generally well above prototype top speeds, and never once derailed, let alone threatened to take a trip tot he floor.
Of course, since I am being extra careful on the real track work to have tight joints, perfectly alined jonts, smooth transitions, etc, this is where I'll probably have problems...
BTW, a #4 crossover is a pretty tight S-curve, suitable only for rather short cars. I wouldn't expect to see full length passenger cars negotiate such trackwork cleanly no matter what brand of turnout was used. Regardless of what the Atlas plan books say, a #6 turnout should be the minimum for a crossover, just for reliability's sake. For long passenger cars, a #8 would be even better, if you have the space.

--Randy

[claycts]

The NEW railroad has ALL #6 prebuilt crossovers (as soon as I buy them). The #4 deal was from 1962. The manufacturing has gotten much better in 40 years (I HOPE). I think the turnout war hs been decided in favor of Walthers. I may MIX them but I think keeping one brand is better. I would have gone Atlas but.
Reading the responses it sounds like Atlas is the step child that is not ever talked about.
I have been planing (3rd planet and AuotCadd) for 2 years and still have not finished the train room. I may just build a seperate structure if I can not overcome the 45deg angle of the roof! The bench can only be 27" high and at almost 60 years old I do not see me crawing under that thing to get in the room.[:D]

[rrinker]

See, told you people make fun of you if you use Atlas. Well, I don't care, the new Peco code 83 is more then double the cost. I used Peco before, nothing against them, they work great. But I don't think they're more than twice as good. And somewhere I have a Shinohara I picked up probably 10 years ago as a sample, I was not impressed, although the newer ones are supposed to be much improved.
I've been planning for over 4 years now, although my original plan was thwarted by a move. I now have a large finished attic that I use as my office that was considered for the layout, but rejected because of the sloping ceiling issue. I'm not too old now to crawl around, but I don't want to bang my head and I want the trains to be up higher so I can actually see them. And you know what? I'm NOT goign to finish off my basement completely, either. Contrary to all those pretty pictures you see in the magazines, not NEARLY everyone has fully finished carpeted luxury rooms for their layouts. And since I will be building double-decked, from 36" up to 72" will be all backdrop (and the upper deck) so you won't see the walls anyway. And stuff that has been down there nearly two years now shows no signs of collecting dust, so it's a fairly clean environment. Plus with the narrow dimension being 12', I'm not too keen on cutting that down by another 6". On the contrary, if I had a mere 2' more it would really help allow a better plan. But nothing I can do about that.

--Randy

[scole100]

Stay clear of Atlas. The cheap price will not offset the years of greif from derailments. I have had good luck with the Walthers turnouts in the past. I am doing a rebuild on the layout at the moment. We moved this summer. I am using Peco turnouts on the new sections and they seem to be well worth the money. Good Luck.

[claycts]

QUOTE: Originally posted by scole100

Stay clear of Atlas. The cheap price will not offset the years of greif from derailments. I have had good luck with the Walthers turnouts in the past. I am doing a rebuild on the layout at the moment. We moved this summer. I am using Peco turnouts on the new sections and they seem to be well worth the money. Good Luck.

.THis reminds me of the Ferrari Cahet talk about which WAX to use. THe most expensive was not the best but the money saving one was the worst so you have to find a compromise in all this. (man I wi***his had a spell checker)

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by claycts

(man I wi***his had a spell checker)

http://www.iespell.com -- nice free spell checker that hooks into Internet Explorer (shows up in the right-click menu) and works with any online bulletin board.

[rrinker]

Too bad I don't use IE anymore [:D]

Like I said, i tested these things. Tested them under conditions far worse than will exist in properly laid track - in other words, I broke all the rules, and STILL do not get derailments on a variety of rolling stock unless I push it at warp speed, faster than any decent loco will run and faster than any decent modeller should EVER run their trains. It's a railroad, not a racetrack. ANyway, I really thinkt he majority of problems with derailments, especially on turnouts, are caused by out of gauge wheels, and other out of spec items like tread width and flange depth.
On Atlas Custom-Line turnouts,Code 83, Proto2000 wheelsets roll perfectly smooth. So do, amazingly enough, old Rivarossi passenger cars with super deep flanges. But the Kato wheelsets on the set of Kato covered hoppers I have? They 'bounce' a little. Not enough to derail, but when you press down on the car you feel it 'catch' on something. It's certainly not the flange depth - if that were true, the Rivarossi wheels would bottom out long before the others! Stock Accurail and Athearn wheelsets pass with no problem as well, although I will NOT allow plastic wheelsets in actual operation and all such are being replaced by Proto2000 as I adjust the weights and couplers on my cars (I don't have that many yet, so it's not a big job).
Oh yeah, going WAY back, until the late 70's the layout we used to put up at home had some Atlas Snap-Track that went back to the FIFTIES and never cause derailment issues even with the typical lightweight and cheap Tyco rolling stock we ran back then.
You may say the Atlas track lacks the fine detailing present on t he new Peco, or on the Central Valley kits, but there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with their performance.

--Randy

[camarokid]

I once tried to run my Big Boy through an Atlas #4 and it derailed. I might have been running it too fast though. Now I use #6's and larger for everything but my small area warehouse district where it's all 4's and 18" and 15" radius. No problems, but you have to file on them some but it's worth the effort.
Archie
P.S. No, I don't run the Big Boy in the district.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrinker

Too bad I don't use IE anymore [:D]

Neither do I, but there's also an add-on spellchecker extension for Firefox called "SpellBound". http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/

[BR60103]

The Peco code 83 range currently has # 5 and # 6 turnouts and # 6 crossings.
And flex track and an inspection pit! No 3-ways or slips yet. The crossing can't be used for a double crossover.
The locking spring can be loosened or you can put a stiffer wire in the Tortoise.
Unfortunately, they've used an American prototype for it, so it's useless for my purposes.